EDITORIAL: Explanations

The Daily Pennsylvanian explainsThe Daily Pennsylvanian explainsitself and asks the NominationsThe Daily Pennsylvanian explainsitself and asks the NominationsElections Committee to do the same.The Daily Pennsylvanian explainsitself and asks the NominationsElections Committee to do the same.___________________________________ In speaking to the DP without prefacing his comments by saying he did not wish to be quoted by name, Schorr violated Article 5, Section D of the NEC's code which prohibits candidates from having their name mentioned in the press. Some say the DP, in running Schorr's name with his comments -- knowing that such action could serve as grounds for his disqualification -- deliberately ruined a person's campus political career. As editors, we felt the decision to run Schorr's name with his comments was an appropriate editorial judgement -- not a political statement or grudge, but an attempt to maintain journalistic integrity. This is because regardless of our personal feelings on the content of the Fair Practices Code, we believe our on-the-record reporting should be maintained. When a reporter calls a source, he or she identifies himself or herself as a reporter, and from that point on, everything is on the record unless specified otherwise -- each one of the candidates was made aware of this in advance during information sessions with the NEC. While we do not have to abide by the NEC's Fair Practices Code, we do try to practice journalism as fairly as possible. It is a difficult standard to aspire to, and one that we have often been accused of not reaching. Our intentions in running Schorr's and Cheryl Harmelin's names were not borne out of malice, but just the opposite -- we aspired towards an objectivity that, as students and journalists, it is difficult to achieve. We try to be as transparent as possible in our editorial decisions in the interest of objectivity and impartiality. In light of this, we urge the NEC to similarly add openness to its grievance hearings. At present, these hearings are open, but deliberations are closed to the public -- no one outside the group knows exactly why one candidate was punished and not another. The NEC holds the power to overrule the students -- a democratically elected candidate can be disqualified if the committee supports the complaint against him. We urge the NEC to lend transparency to its proceedings and explain the nature and reasoning behind each decision. Ultimate objectivity may never be reached -- this does not make it any less worthy a goal to strive for.